The Great Green Con #1 GW Forecasts Wrong Again

[TimG]

You have to be more specific in your arguments: "Knowing enough" shouldn't mean that evidence is irrefutable.

My point is what is "enough" is a matter of opinion informed by a cost benefit analysis. For a typical lefty that finds industry 'yucky' the standard of evidence required to justify action is much lower than for a libertarian who dislikes government intervention in the economy.

IOW - just because you find the evidence sufficient to justify action given your various priorities that does not mean you should expect me to find the same evidence sufficient given my various priorities.

Debates about whether climate change is occurring or not are really about this 'cost benefit analysis' that everyone does for themselves and not about the science per se because as you say: science is rarely irrefutable and how much weight one puts on the uncertainty is a personal decision.

Edited March 26, 2013 by TimG

[scribblet]

That's pretty good, you found a state. In any case, aside from Potshots at Al Gore, tabloid articles, and general whining you say that climate is changing ? And you quote - cough - Monckton ? I have some videos that thoroughly deflower him as an unequivocal know-nothing, a total blowhard if you'd like me to send them to you.

I have lots more including the U.K. trending towards colder winters.. yesterday it was emotional, now I'm 'whining', you really need to stop with the personal comments and unnecessary personal negative verbiage.

Even the IPCC admitted to a problem, when their leaked draft confirmed suspicious that the case for man made GW is looking weaker by the day and that the sun plays a much more significant role in "climate change" than the scientific "consensus" has previously been prepared to admit to.

The earth has changed/cycled, warmed, cooled for eons and will continue to do so with or without the help of humans.

Not only has our planet stopped warming, but we may be headed toward a vast cooling period.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html

No Need to Panic About Global Warming - There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.

Back in 1974 Time Magazine reported on the coming ice age, and recently http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/

Earth may be headed into a mini Ice Age within a decade - Physicists say sunspot cycle is 'going into hibernation'

What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening, as heavyweight US solar physicists announce that the Sun appears to be headed into a lengthy spell of low activity, which could mean that the Earth – far from facing a global warming problem – is actually headed into a mini Ice Age

Not all people agree with the alarmists, there is no consensus and what is being presented changes every day. We don't know for sure and we can all post umpteen links poo pooing the other side and echo agreement with those we agree it. Better get those pipelines built we are going to need more heating fuel.

[bush_cheney2004]

The so called evidence is certainly not "irrefutable", and even if it was....so what...nothing will be done except to adapt. Anything else is a waste of time and money. Hydrocarbons rule !!

[Spiderfish]

There is irrefutable evidence... empirical based... to conclude that anthropogenic sourced CO2 is the principal causal tie to the relatively recent GW.

Yes, data and quantitative evidence continually changes/adjusts and scientific understandings may or may not change, accordingly. It's called science - that's the nature of science.

Wow Waldo, I actually agree with you on something. Scientific understanding does indeed change as evidence changes. I guess that means that empirical data used for supporting evidence is never irrefutable.

There are untold numbers of scientific papers going back decades that drew upon distinctions between climate change and global warming. Do you even make your own distinction?

I do, that's why I brought it up. There are however, many supporters of the human induced global warming hypothesis who don't.

[waldo]

The so called evidence is certainly not "irrefutable", and even if it was....so what...nothing will be done except to adapt. Anything else is a waste of time and money. Hydrocarbons rule !!

what does this have to do with your "greater CanAm dynamic"... don't you have another thread waiting for yet another of your cut&paste gems?

[bush_cheney2004]

what does this have to do with your "greater CanAm dynamic"... don't you have another thread waiting for yet another of your cut&paste gems?

See "Alberta", "bitumen", "Keystone XL", and "pipeline". Hydrocarbons talk...alarmists walk.

Edited March 26, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

That is kind of the point isn't it? Alarmists claim we know enough to justify numerous harebrained schemes designed to reduce CO2 emissions. Skeptics respond that we don't know enough to justify those kinds of insane policies. This makes alarmists froth at the mouth and start spinning tales of fossil fuel funded conspiracies but it does not change the fundamental truth: we have no idea what climate is going to do in the next 20 or 100 years nor do we know if the change to climate is going to be a net negative.

no - the kind of the point is that, as you've been repeatedly challenged to do... as you've never been able to do, if you have anything... any other alternative... anything whatsoever to account for global warming, anything to suggest as the principal causal tie to global warming... anything other than anthropogenic sourced CO2... you would have brought it forward. You've never been able to move beyond your standard "scheming hairbrained" nothingness.

[waldo]

I have lots more including the U.K. trending towards colder winters..

and you've significantly embarrassed yourself. It's called Dunning-Kruger... look it up!

[Spiderfish]

You may have missed the part where I said there will never be consensus.

I guess I must have.

There is a broad fact-based consensus that human activity causes warming....

Wait a minute...

[waldo]

That's pretty good, you found a state.

except you didn't bother to press her on specifics of the actual study she presumes to leverage. Of course, what she doesn't recognize is that Alaska (and arctic warming generally) has been at twice the global rate of warming. The arctic is warming more than anywhere on the earth. Decreasing warming is not cooling, particularly when it starts from such a higher level relative to the rest of the globe. More pointedly, this is a decadal snapshot - a short 10 year timeframe within the broader 25-30 year climate period. We've had no shortage of discussion within MLW threads on the problems in assuming anything relative to short-term periods and related trends therein. Perhaps the study's summation should have been the clue for scribbler... but then again, that would have assumed she actually read the study... that she could even interpret the study!

In summary, the long term observed warming of Alaska of about twice the global value, as expected by the increasing CO2 and other trace gases, is sometimes temporarily modified or even reversed by natural decadal variations. This is not the first observed occurrence that can be found in the historical record of Alaska [14], as the 1920’s were warm, and starting in the mid-1940’s a cold period occurred lasting some 3 decades, after which it become warm again.

and, of course, scribbler doesn't bother to recognize the author's own attibution for the decade... that the reduced warming (not cooling) can be attributed to a phase shift in the PDO!

[Michael Hardner]

irrefutable??? Perhaps it's a matter of degree/interpretation.

Irrefutable meaning - can not be refuted. It would take an impossible amount of certainty to not even be able to argue against the evidence. But the question is academic.

[waldo]

But we can't simply turn off the oil pipelines and natural gas plants. Parts of the prairies saw windchill temperatures of -28c last night, windmills and solar panels just aren't going to cut it in our climate. I believe things are being done, but it takes time to develop new technology...and it doesn't come cheap.

strawman! No thinking advocates presume on any near-term elimination of fossil-fuel dependency. Most thinking advocates posit formal 40-50 year roadmap pursuits that emphasize an ever-diminishing weaning off the fossil-fuel teet!!! It won't happen overnight... even in the next decade or two. But it has to begin - now! And it is beginning to varying degrees across varying countries.

[waldo]

Irrefutable meaning - can not be refuted. It would take an impossible amount of certainty to not even be able to argue against the evidence. But the question is academic.

and... it's an academic exercise one shouldn't be drawn into... as I slap myself down for engaging in it.

[Sleipnir]

The Great Green Con no. 1: The hard proof that finally shows global warming forecasts that are costing you billions were WRONG all along

Try a scientific journal, not some journalistic tabloids.

[waldo]

I do, that's why I brought it up. There are however, many supporters of the human induced global warming hypothesis who don't

it's a nonsense point of distinction because one leads to the other... it's not a question of either or. Your implication seemed rather cutting - that a shifting name emphasis was somehow a convenient method of circumventing "something you had in your mind"!

[Spiderfish]

strawman! No thinking advocates presume on any near-term elimination of fossil-fuel dependency. Most thinking advocates posit formal 40-50 year roadmap pursuits that emphasize an ever-diminishing weaning off the fossil-fuel teet!!! It won't happen overnight... even in the next decade or two. But it has to begin - now! And it is beginning to varying degrees across varying countries.

Maybe so, but it's not thinking advocates that are driving the debate. There are many who advocate shutting down oil production and punitively taxing and fining people for driving their cars to work. This is not constructive.

[waldo]

Maybe so, but it's not thinking advocates that are driving the debate. There are many who advocate shutting down oil production and punitively taxing and fining people for driving their cars to work. This is not constructive.

if it exists to any meaningful degree... if the debate drivers you speak of have any real/meaningful input. It's quite hard to speak to your broad-based generalizations.

[waldo]

I have lots more including the U.K. trending towards colder winters...

other than confirming that you've seen this splashed across denier blogs in the last couple of days, what's your point? What does seasonal weather have to do with whatever point you have... the point that you're not stating? Trend? Again, you (indirectly) bring forward another short-term trending reference... one over the shortest of short time frames!!! 4 out 5 of the last UK winters have an overall winter mean temperature below the anomaly reference level... meanwhile, overall annual temperature mean for all but 2 of the last 16 years has been warmer than the anomaly reference level. Singling out winter must mean something to you, hey scribbler? And your point was what, again?

but what's this? Imagine, scientists engaged looking to question and attempt to account for this very point of... 4 out of the last 5 UK winter mean temperatures being below the anomaly reference. You've heard about the dramatic Arctic sea-ice loss, right scribbler? Scientific research is showing that the decreasing autumn Arctic sea ice has been linked to winter changes in Northern Hemispheric atmospheric circulation... causing a shift in the jet-stream position to allow cold air from the Arctic to plunge much further south. Additionally, the loss of Arctic sea ice also raises atmospheric water vapour content providing enhanced moisture sources, supporting increased heavy snowfall in Europe during early winter.

Scientists link frozen spring to dramatic Arctic sea ice loss

Met Office: Arctic sea-ice loss linked to colder, drier UK winters

[waldo]

Even the IPCC admitted to a problem, when their leaked draft confirmed suspicious that the case for man made GW is looking weaker by the day and that the sun plays a much more significant role in "climate change" than the scientific "consensus" has previously been prepared to admit to.

you're on a roll scribbler! This nugget of yours also originates from a denier blog but got most of it's mileage via another notorious British tabloid "journalist", Delingpole... along with your earlier David Rose linkage, you've now hit 2 of the biggest tabloid hacks out there! Well done.

of course your statement is utter tripe and has no foundation in truth - none whatsoever. Following is the supposed (your claimed) IPCC admission of a "weaker case for man made GW"... (your claimed) IPCC admission that the "sun plays a much more significant role in climate change than the scientific consensus has previously been prepared to admit to". By the by... why is the IPCC "coming clean"... why is the IPCC finally "fessing up"?

Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR [galactic cosmic rays] or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system...The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link

which is nothing more than a statement that there might be an amplifying feedback mechanism between cosmic rays-cloud seeding, solar activity and some aspects of the climate system. Wow! Of course, what the denier blog leaker and the tabloid "journalist" Delingpole missed (conveniently neglected to mention) is the IPCC statement emphasizing research shows cosmic rays are not effective at seeding clouds and that they have very little influence on global temperatures:

...there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of [cloud condensation nuclei] or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle in any climatically significant way

the real crux of this denier/tabloid nonsense shows through in relation to the absence of any increased solar activity during the period of relatively recent warming... from an earlier post:

… the scientists at the World Radiation Center, the guys who have been constructing a satellite based, ‘Composite Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) Time Series from 1978 to present, somehow… those guys have been unable to show the presence of any increased solar irradiance during the same periods significant earth’s temperature increases. All they show, is a repeat of similar standard 11 year solar cycle patterns, absent any increases in solar irradiance, absent any increased trend in solar irradiance to match that of earth’s temperature trend increase. Results graph showing no increase in solar irradiance – here:

... what about those scientists at the Max Plank Institute for Solar System Research… somehow… those guys have also been unable to show any increase in solar irradiance to account and associate with the recent earth’s warming. Results graph showing no increase in solar irradiance… showing no correlation between solar irradiance and earth’s recent increased warming – here:

in fact, a more detailed view shows that solar irradiance has actually declined over the last 30+ years... suggesting that even if cosmic rays has a feedback amplifying effect on solar activity... it would be amplifying a cooling effect.

.

[waldo]

Not only has our planet stopped warming, but we may be headed toward a vast cooling period.

citation request

[waldo]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html

No Need to Panic About Global Warming - There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.

a letter from 16 scientists/engineers of dubious importance/relevance... at large, a collection of retired, emeritus and non-climate related persons. Of course, the signatory list was reviewed in detail and shown to include: "only 4 scientists who have published climate research in peer-reviewed journals... with only 2 of the 4 having published climate research in the past 30 years. Of the 16, at least 7 have received funding from the fossil fuel industry... and the list includes persons in unrelated fields... an economist, a physician, a chemist, an aerospace engineer, and an astronaut/politician. Heady bunch there!!! The letter's content has been soundly debunked... scribbler, if there's anything from the letter you'd particularly care to push forward... please do.

although notorious for it's anti-science/denier position, the WSJ did see fit to publish a couple of direct countering letter responses, here & here

or... you might choose to read a letter that includes 255 signatories, 255 prominent scientists, all members of the U.S. National Academy of Science... a letter calling for urgent action to address the causes of climate change:

[scribblet]

Maybe so, but it's not thinking advocates that are driving the debate. There are many who advocate shutting down oil production and punitively taxing and fining people for driving their cars to work. This is not constructive.

So far all we have are various degrees of inaccuracy.

IMO the true believer alarmists/cultists simply dismiss any evidence that counters their belief in the coming GW apocalypse. They are extremely intolerant of dissent to their catechism so their zealotry has the opposite effect they want.

I'm all for clean water and stopping pollution but do not go along with the radicals who seem to hate Western civilization and often use GW as a means of forwarding their own political agenda.

In the U.K. March could be the coldest for 50 years and winter is expected to stay for yet another week

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/02/07/lawrence-solomon-celsius-not-rising/

Our thermometers simply haven’t been rising. According to a study last month by NASA’s James Hansen, Al Gore’s mentor, temperatures have been “flat for the past decade.” According to the U.K.’s Meteorological Office, every bit Al Gore’s equal in alarmism, the temperature standstill has lasted 15 years and, its revised models say, may extend to 20. No wonder public opinion hasn’t rallied to the alarmist cause.

http://www.thegwpf.org/hansen-admits-global-temperature-standstill-real/

Edited March 27, 2013 by scribblet

[BubberMiley]

I'm just curious why you angrily deny denying and then, in the next breath, deny some more. Is it because you know you have no argument and are just trying to weakly deflect debate by pretending you're not doing what you're doing?

No matter. Continue citing weather reports to show just how much you really don't understand.

[scribblet]

"Angrily" really, another one ascribing emotions and so on that are not there. Get a grip, you aren't the only one with an opinion and when someone disagrees you have to attack. If totally believing the alarmist hype helps you make it through your day, who am I to rob you of your your small joys?

carry on if it makes you happy ...

Edited March 27, 2013 by scribblet

[waldo]

I'm just curious why you angrily deny denying and then, in the next breath, deny some more. Is it because you know you have no argument and are just trying to weakly deflect debate by pretending you're not doing what you're doing?

No matter. Continue citing weather reports to show just how much you really don't understand.

it's a standard denier tactic... state an acceptance of "climate change" and then launch into an ongoing diatribe clearly denying global warming. When challenged to account for her "denied acceptance"... to causally attribute her suspect acceptance... she gets testy to the point of playing the victim. Her one-liner cut&paste extravaganza hits a list of long-standing debunked nonsense... I bothered to address a few of her worst. Her sources are a brazen list of hack journalists, fake-skeptics and outright deniers. Clearly, she hasn't the capacity to discuss anything - yet she remains staunchly boisterous in her right to posture from a position of know nothingness... a position fueled by nothing more than denier blogs and her ability to cut&paste talking points.